IISc-B TEAMTECH’06

Vehicle Occupant, Head Impact Zone Simulation

Mr. Rahul V. Pathare1, Prof. Ayub A. Miraje2, Prof. Umesh S. Chavan3, Mr.
Shekhar G. Saraf4
1
2nd Year M.E. – Mechanical Design Student, Sinhgad College of Engineering, Pune
email: rahulpathare@email.sae.org
2
Asst. Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sinhgad College of
Engineering,
Pune.
email: miraje_asim@rediffmail.com
3
Asst. Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vishwakarma Institute of
Technology, Pune.
email: umeshschavan@rediffmail.com
4
Sr. Project Engineer - Safety and Homologation Laboratory, The Automotive
Research
Association of India (A.R.A.I.), Pune.
email: saraf.shl@araiindia.com

Mr. Rahul V. Pathare

M.E. – Mechanical Engineering (Design),
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sinhgad College of Engineering,
Pune -411 041, India
Email: rahulpathare@email.sae.org
 ABSTRACT

The national highways and number of vehicles on road is increasing, this coupled to
corresponding increase of speed and power, promote vehicular accidents. Such
accidents consist of body injury to occupants. Here, head injury, with steering and
Instrument Panel (IP) is most prominent.

Occupant safety is a priority issue for automotive development. Since every possible
crash on road cannot be simulated - standardized lab test procedures have been
developed to simulate occupant/vehicle interaction.

Such tests being destructive in nature, it consumes valuable resources like

components, time and finances. With today’s’ competitive market, it is not feasible
to wait for a product/component to be fully manufactured before subjecting it to
such tests.

The availability and reliability of Finite Element approach, has thus been given a
prominence in evaluating a design (here, Instrument Panel) in its concept stage
itself. Thereby optimizing the three most prominent parameters mentioned above.
Keywords: Vehicle, Occupant, Instrument Panel, Safety, Simulation.
 Vehicle Occupant, Head Impact Zone Simulation

INTRODUCTION:
Physical testing for occupant safety is a mandatory CMVR (Central Motor
Vehicle Rules) requirement to demonstrate compliance with domestic vehicle
safety standards. Manufacturers, independent laboratories, universities,
insurance-funded entities and private parties may perform compliance testing.
In India, the responsibility for such compliance testing rests with authorized
agencies like ARAI, VRDE, CIRT, etc.

The testing agencies are required to take physical tests on the Instrument Panel
along with other interior components, to validate the
compliance with the standards.

Such an Interior Test1 involves the following stages:

 Physical determination of the Front seat H-Points2,
based on the manufacturer’s data, using H-point
measuring apparatus. (Fig. 1)
Figure: 1 Seat H-point determination

 Establish the driver and co-driver Head

impact zone, by virtue of the
relationship between the Instrument
Panel and the seat H-Point, in complete
vehicle. (Fig. 2)
Figure : 2 Head Impact Zone Identification.

 Identify a set of critical impact

points on the Instrument Panel.
(Fig. 3 )
Figure : 3 Head Impact point determination

 Mount the test specimen (including

Instrument Panel, cut body shell, etc)
onto the Test bed. (Fig. 4 )

Figure : 4 Impact test setup

Alternatively, the manufacturer may prove the dynamically determined head

impact zone3 by either:
 Vehicle impact tests
 Sled tests
  Simulated impact testing

NEED:
The emphasis for such a safety requirement can be seen from the details of the
human body contacts with the Interiors of the vehicle. (Refer Table 1. )

Table : 1 Distribution of accident contacts with Human body4

CONTACT OCCUPANT BODY REGION
ALL HEAD CHEST ABDOMEN NECK OTHER
1 Steering 26.87 3.13 11.90 9.41 0.39 2.04
Wheel
2 Instrument 11.21 1.65 2.06 1.85 0.34 5.31
Panel
3 Windshield 5.03 4.67 0.01 0.00 0.21 0.14
4 Glove Box 3.44 0.29 0.84 1.23 0.05 1.04
5 Mirrors 1.10 1.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
6 Frontal 0.79 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.58
Hardware
All Frontal 49.37 10.84 14.89 12.72 1.08 9.85
Interior Contacts
All Interior 80.29 23.77 20.89 17.81 2.81 14.87
Contacts
All Non- 7.91 0.11 0.13 1.03 0.37 1.96
Contacts
ALL TOTAL 100.00 29.64 22.78 19.29 10.63 17.54

Occupant Size:
The Occupant size5 (Fig. 5)under investigation includes the 5th percentile
female to the 95th percentile male. This range of occupant sizes covers
approximately 95% of all
vehicle occupants, ages 18 and
Headform 840mm older.
Apparatus
165mm Ø
The occupant interaction with
736mm Instrument Panel is very
complex. There are limitless
varieties of configurations
Dashboard offered by the Instrument
/ Panel designers, and this is
Instrument
Panel
compounded by the
H-Point 2 geometrical possibilities
introduced by differences in
19mm angle and direction of occupant
127
interaction.
mm
The geometric configuration of the interior of the vehicle also plays a vital role
in the crash survivability. The configuration affects the impact locations of the
body segments and determines which components are struck and in what
manner.
The interaction is based on H-Point location of the seat package. Adjustments
for seating location of the 5th percentile female and the 95th percentile male
occupant are based on data of vehicle interior space, seat mechanism and seat
structure.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION:
The entire test involves a high test time factor during: (Fig. 6)
 Marking phase of head impact zone.
 Measurement phase of angularity of impact, dimensions of impact zone,
 Transfer of markings from vehicle to test specimen.
 Identification of critical impact points
 Setting up of relationship between the Impactor and Instrument Panel
Measurement Method Machine

H-pt Position Setup Time H-pt Mechanism

Cont a c t
Setup Angle Msmt
Angle
Condi t n Impactor
Msmt Critical
Impact H-pt Position Areas
Velocity of
Test
Body Process
M/c Setup I.P.
Stiffness Matl.
Ca l c of
Impact I.P. Construction Body Matl.
velocity Zone transfer
Head Impact Addon Matl.
on specimen
Zone

Man Geometry Material

Figure : 6 Problem identification tool (Ishikawa Diagram)
To enable reduction of all of the above to an optimum, the standard3 includes a
provision for a computer simulation to represent the test. The focus of this
paper is thereby to enable the test agency to make use of this provision and
reduce most of the above mentioned potentially disadvantageous areas of the
test.

NEED FOR COMPUTER SIMULATION:

Although conventional experimental methods have led to a number of
successful advancements in automotive safety, computer modeling is needed to
understand how individual improvements would affect the entire spectrum of
occupant population and or to explore the combinations of crash environment,
vehicle and occupant parameters. A study of this scope (necessary during the
initial product design and development) using experimental techniques would
not be feasible because of the cost, time constraints and consistency of
destructive tests.

FEA METHODOLOGY: IDENTIFYING THE HEAD IMPACT ZONE OF

THE VEHICLE (USING HYPERMESH)
1. Position the Instrument Panel surface, as per co-
ordinate specifications (Fig. 7 )
Figure : 7 Baseline trial setup
2. Position headform sphere
wrt H-Point.
3. Apply rotation to headform
from vertical position towards IP surface in an arc.
4. Stop rotation at contact of sphere with IP surface.
(Fig.8 )
Figure : 8 Headform contact with surface.
5. Identify the interference of sphere into the
Instrument Panel surface (if any).
6. Identify and save nodes resulting at tangency.
7. Hide the elements and recall nodes. (Fig. 9)
Figure : 9 Display of contact nodes
8. Connect mean nodes to obtain curve of Headform contact zone (Fig. 10)

Figure : 10 Connection of defining nodes.

DESCRIPTION OF FEA APPROACH:

The software, Hypermesh, checks contact between profiles of human model and
impacting vehicle body. As soon as the intruding body contacts the Instrument
Panel, a node of contact is generated. Using the zone marking apparatus motion
specified by the standard, the zone is similarly generated in the software.

Software input data consists of the following:

1. 3D geometric CAD data of the Instrument Panel.
2. H-Point and Instrument Panel co-ordinate data.

FEA MARKING OF PROTOTYPE TEST SPECIMEN:

The prototype CAD data of an Indian manufacturer was imported in
Hypermesh. Positioning of the Instrument Panel was done in the specified
design position. Meshing carried out on the same with mesh size maintained at
3mm element size.

Similarly, the zone marking apparatus was

positioned as per the designed H-Point position.
The apparatus sphere was also meshed with
element size 3mm. An initial interaction of the H-
Point sphere motion with the Instrument Panel
surface yields the following results :
Figure : 11 Zone Marking (736mm rear, co-driver position)

Figure : 12 Zone Marking (736mm rear, co-driver

position)

Figure : 13 Zone Marking (840mm front, co-driver position)

Figure : 14 Zone Marking (Steering exemption zone)

Figure : 15 Zone
Marking (840mm front driver position)

Figure : 16 Zone Marking completed.

Figure : 17 Final Zone result.

PHYSICAL MARKING OF PROTOTYPE TEST SPECIMEN:

The physical prototype test specimen (Fig. 18 ) was evaluated from the vehicle
packaging and head impact zone dimensional requirements point of view.

Figure : 18 Instrument Panel of Test specimen

The physical marking with some reference dimensions (Fig. 19 ) is shown
below:

CORRELATION OF PHYSICAL AND FEA ZONE MARKING

(CASE STUDY):
The comparative correlation of the physical and computer aided zone marking
system reveals the following difference in the zone dimensions:

Figure : 19 Physical Marking result Figure : 20 Zone Marking using Hypermesh

Table : 2 - Zone dimensional correlation.

S. No. Physical measurement (mm) FEA dimensions (mm) Error (mm)
1 140 158 +18
2 70 84 +14
3 95 86 -9
4 100 118 +18
(H-Point measurement tolerance allowed, ± 25mm)1

Further study reveals the possibility of such a deviation primarily due to two
types of errors:

A.) FEA ERRORS:

These are dependent on the FEA system used for the zone identification.
1. Error in the FEA inputs of the Instrument Panel profile, location of the
Instrument Panel, seat position and operation of the mechanism motion.
2. Error due to finite meshing size.
3. CAD data geometry and its meshing erratic.
4. Location data of Instrument Panel mounting erratic.
5. H-Point data position erratic.
6. Programming of H-Point motion erratic.
7. Co-ordinate system differences, during data import.
8. Finite steps of programming motion.

PHYSICAL ERRORS:

These errors occur primarily due to the various factors interacting during the
test e.g. man, machine, method, material, geometry and measurement,.
1. Error in physical seat set-up and positioning, as per design
 specifications.
2. Error in positioning the H-Point mechanism on seat.
3. Identifying the 3d H-Point physically with respect to the Vehicle zero.
4. Positioning the H-Point (tolerance band allowed ± 25mm radially)
5. Mechanism error in terms of travel of H-Point mechanism, i.e. range
736 ~ 840mm.
6. Mechanism error in terms of mechanical play of joints.
7. Mounting of physical Instrument Panel on body shell.
8. Ambient temperature conditioning, affecting seat foam properties.
9. Seat loading-unloading conditioning sequence led to foam settling.

CONCLUSION:

This paper has successfully attempted to understand the occupant impact zone,
occurring in case of vehicular collisions. Thus, having a direct applicability of
such a study to ongoing changes in vehicle design from safety point of view.

The physical procedure of carrying out the zone marking was identified as a
critical phase of the certification test. This was also found to be complex in
nature, due to intricate 3D varying profile of Instrument Panel. The dimensional
relation of the seat H-Point, which is a 3D point in space and the Instrument
Panel, plays a key role in the zone identification. This method was found to
have certain deficiencies in terms of setup time, measurement ease and
accuracy.

The paper thus focused on minimizing these deficiencies, by means of a Finite

Element Analysis procedure. The approach by use of Altair-Hypermesh
software has brought out a successful result, correlated to actual physical test
result of a prototype vehicle. Also, the time factor, which is of much
importance during developmental activities, is found reduced by means of the
FEA technique. The only time involved is during the initial meshing activity, as
the subsequent zone interaction can be made via a direct program. And, hence
this procedure can be implemented as an alternative for the developmental tests
of vehicles.

REFERENCES:
1. IS 15223:2002 Automotive Vehicles – Interior Fittings specifications.
2. IS 13749:1993 Automotive Vehicles – Determination of H-Point.
3. ECE R-21 Interior Fittings
4. Backaitis, S., and Delarm, L., The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Occupant Kinematics in Motor Vehicle Crashes,
WP_820247v001.
5. Woodson, W. E., and Tillman, B. & P., Human factors design
Handbook.
6. Mizonu, K., and others, Traffic Safety and Nuisance Research Institute,
The Relationship between car size and Occupant Injury,
 WP_970123v001.
7. Keranen, M., and Hanford, J. Visteon Corporation, Interior Fittings - a
Global overview, 2003-01-1175v001.
8. McGuire, N., and others, Visteon Corporation, Genpad-Ergonomic
Packaging, 2002-01-1241.